A New York appellate court has reversed a previous judgment in a case involving Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and Mauro Forward Chiropractic, P.C. This decision allows the chiropractic clinic to challenge the insurance company's claims regarding no-fault medical payments. The ruling is significant as it addresses issues of service and personal jurisdiction in legal proceedings.

The case, officially known as Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Mauro Forward Chiropractic, P.C. (Docket No. 2025-07071), began when GEICO filed a lawsuit against Mauro Forward Chiropractic in August 2023. The insurance company sought a declaration that it was not obligated to reimburse certain medical payments submitted by the chiropractic clinic. Mauro Forward Chiropractic failed to respond to the complaint, leading GEICO to seek a default judgment.

In August 2024, the Supreme Court of Nassau County granted GEICO's unopposed motion for a default judgment, resulting in a ruling against Mauro Forward Chiropractic. Following this, the chiropractic clinic filed a motion to vacate the judgment, claiming it had not been properly served with the lawsuit. The court denied this motion in March 2025, prompting Mauro Forward Chiropractic to appeal the decision.

The appellate court's ruling, issued on November 12, 2026, reversed the lower court's decision. The judges on the panel included Colleen D. Duffy, Betsy Barros, Barry E. Warhit, and Lisa S. Ottley. The court emphasized that when a defendant raises a jurisdictional objection, the court must first address whether the defendant was properly served before considering whether to vacate the default judgment.

The court stated, "Where, as here, a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment raises a jurisdictional objection... a court is required to resolve the jurisdictional question before determining whether it is appropriate to grant a discretionary vacatur of the default."

The appellate court noted that the affidavit of service from the process server created a presumption of proper service. However, Mauro Forward Chiropractic successfully rebutted this presumption by submitting an affidavit from its owner, which provided specific facts challenging the validity of the service. As a result, the court ordered a hearing to determine whether the chiropractic clinic had been properly served with the lawsuit.

This ruling is important as it reinforces the principle that defendants have the right to contest service of process, which is a fundamental aspect of ensuring fair legal proceedings. If a defendant can demonstrate that they were not properly served, they may have grounds to vacate a default judgment.

Going forward, this decision impacts not only the parties involved but also sets a precedent for similar cases where defendants challenge the validity of service. It highlights the importance of proper service in legal actions and the necessity for courts to thoroughly examine jurisdictional claims before making determinations on default judgments.

Currently, the case is remitted back to the Supreme Court of Nassau County for a hearing on the service issue. The outcome of this hearing will determine whether Mauro Forward Chiropractic can successfully vacate the default judgment and potentially defend itself against GEICO's claims regarding the no-fault medical payments.

Details regarding the potential for further appeals or any related cases were not available in the court filing. However, the appellate court's ruling provides a clear path for the chiropractic clinic to contest the previous judgment and seek a fair resolution in the legal dispute with GEICO.